Michael Walzer On the Proposed Coop Boycott

This Sunday afternoon, at the Old Reform Church two blocks away from the Park Slope Food Coop, a group opposing a boycott of Israeli goods is holding a panel that will include Michael Walzer, the longtime editor of Dissent and a board member of the left-wing group Americans for Peace Now. We spoke yesterday about why he opposes boycott, divestment, and sanctions. I sensed a small symbolism in this pillar of old-line Upper West Side leftism taking the 2/3 out to Brooklyn.

How’d you get involved in this issue?
I just got a phone call from one of the organizers, telling me his Brooklyn coop was in the middle of a big debate over whether to support the boycott, and I thought it was important to have this public discussion of the issues. I’m surprised that I did, but I did.

What do you plan to say at the panel?
Some of [the other panelists, Brooke Goldstein and Zuhdi Jasser] are going to be talking about lawfare and universal jurisdiction, that sort of thing. For me, the object of the boycott is not the occupation, for the greater number of the boycotters, especially Europe and also here. The object is Jewish sovereignty, and since I am a defender of Jewish sovereignty, my talk will mostly be devoted to an argument in defense of the nation-state and especially the Jewish nation-state. I’m opposing people who are against the nation-state and in particular the Jewish nation-state. I don’t much like boycotts anyway, especially not academic and cultural boycotts. In this case I think there is a very clear-cut political issue, and it has to do with the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.

How would you feel about a boycott solely of goods produced by Israelis in the occupied territories? (Which, to be clear, isn’t what some are seeking at the Coop.)
Many, I think most, of my friends in Israel support a boycott of that sort, precisely because it is a way of telling Israelis, ‘We do not oppose Jewish sovereignty, we oppose the occupation.’ It is a way of making that distinction very clear. I’m not sure it’s terribly effective, given that the occupation is subsidized, it’s not self-sustaining, and when you go after its economy, there’s really not much of a target there. But I think I could support a boycott designed precisely to make that point—that we oppose the occupation.

What should American Jews who are against the occupation be doing?
If you do oppose, not Jewish sovereignty but the occupation, then you are an ally of a very substantial part of the Israeli population, and you are joining with Israeli opponents of the occupation. What I think you should do, first, is to ask them what kind of help they want from us. They want our political support, they want our financial support, they want us to contribute to their organizations. They want our moral support, so that they can tell their fellow Israelis that they have legitimacy in the larger Jewish world. And I think they want us to visit, to hold hands, to tell them how to advance.

How have you seen the American left, and the American Jewish left, evolve in its stance toward Israel over the past half-century?
There is a period before ‘67, when engagement is relatively weak. Then there is this dramatic moment, which changes a lot. And then a long, long period of struggle, because the glorious victory of ‘67 has unexpected consequences that force us into a kind of oppositional role. And now we are in the middle of an argument about the character of American Jewish engagement with Israel. I think it’s probably true that there is an erosion of commitment among young American Jews to Israel, which is partly a consequence of an erosion of their Jewishness and partly a consequence of their dislike for what’s going on there. I think people with more direct contact with young American Jews will have to sort that out.

WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at letters@tabletmag.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

“there is an erosion of commitment among young American Jews to Israel, which is partly a consequence of an erosion of their Jewishness and partly a consequence of their dislike for what’s going on there. ”

You are far too kind. My perspective on such young folks is that they are young…which means naive, foolish, simple.

For the life of me, I do not understand the logic of punishing Israel or Israelis, wherever they live – inside Israel or in the West Bank – because Israel’s occupation/control over the West Bank continues.

Israel claims to be willing to end the occupation and to accept a Palestinian state, and has taken steps toward this end (establishment of the PA, under which about 95% of Palestinians, not including those in East Jerusalem, live, departure from Gaza, and so on).

Walzer seems to demand that Israel just get up and leave or suffer a boycott, regardless of the actions/non-actions of the other side. This position places Israel in an impossible and patently unfair situation – do what it did in Gaza (get up and leave on its own) or be boycotted. So long as there is no evidence that the other side is willing to agree to reasonable boundaries that take into account Israel’s real security needs (the entitlement of every state), and to forgo their claimed right of return, there is no requirement, legal or ethical, for Israel to unilaterally leave the West Bank.

Given the experience following Israel’s departure from Gaza, anybody who calls on Israel to unilaterally end its control (to the extent it holds control) over the West Bank is, to my mind, making an immoral demand, which, if implemented, will inevitably lead to much bloodshed, to the disadvantage, of course, of both sides.

Put simply, I am bewildered at those persons, many in number, who perceive the conflict as being totally dependent on Israel’s actions.

The conflict may be unsolvable. But it is clear that Israel would be crazy to leave the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) without secure borders and an agreement it can rely on.

Name (required)Email (required, will not be published)Website (optional)

Message

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.